Evolution question

[Polaris]

Because subspecies are artificial divisions assigned by people for their own purposes. When it comes to homo sapiens, virtually the only reason for this would be as some sort of support for racism.

But doesn't the evolution of a new species first require some sort of practical subspecies variation? Otherwise how does a new species emerge?

 

[Autodidact]

A basic grasp? Sure.

Why do you so often feel the need to talk down to people?

The appropriate response to ignoring someone else's polite question would have been an apology.

I don't know exactly. I've read that our DNA is about 95% equivalent, yet 5% of 3 billion DNA pairs is still 150 million DNA differences, many of which can be attributed to differences in junk DNA that has no real genetic effect. The question is how many of those 150 million differences are legitimate and how do they translate to perceptible genetic differences?

And for some reason you assume that the biologists who study this issue have gone fundamentally wrong. I assume that you have done the math then that shows this? Could you share you calculations with us? Thank you.

Why not?

I'm thinking because we move around too much to become reproductively isolated.

 

[Autodidact]

But doesn't the evolution of a new species first require some sort of practical subspecies variation? Otherwise how does a new species emerge?

There is variation. When a group of a single species becomes isolated from the main group, so that there is no more genetic mixing, eventually this variation will result in a group of individuals that are not reproductively compatible with the main group. Bingo, new species. Do you disagree that this happens?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But doesn't the evolution of a new species first require some sort of practical subspecies variation? Otherwise how does a new species emerge?

Every species has variation. Delineating that variation and declaring one segment within it to be a subspecies and some other segment to be a different one isn't necessary.

 

[Polaris]

Now let me make sure I understand you, Polaris. What you are saying is:

The entire field of modern Biology is mistaken. Using the scientific method and process, the entire field has gone completely wrong. New species do not come into existence from old ones by variation plus natural selection. Rather, what happened is that God magically poofed each individual species into existence, and they never change or develop new species; they always stay the same. 99% of them have gone extinct, but no new species ever arise.

Is that what you're maintaining?

You assume too much.

My intent isn't to attempt to poke holes in evolution theory, my intent is to better understand the theory. I'm perfectly open to the idea that God used evolutionary processes to create man (and all other forms of life). I have questions that I would like answered to help resolve conflicts that I perceive in evolution theory.

 

[Polaris]

The appropriate response to ignoring someone else's polite question would have been an apology.

Which I may have done had you not felt compelled to include your snide remark.

And for some reason you assume that the biologists who study this issue have gone fundamentally wrong. I assume that you have done the math then that shows this? Could you share you calculations with us? Thank you.

Here we go again. Hello Miss Condescending. I'm not purporting to know the answer here. I specifically asked the question: how many of those 150 million differences are legitimate and how do they translate to perceptible genetic differences?

I don't know the answer to this -- its an honest question.

 

[Polaris]

There is variation. When a group of a single species becomes isolated from the main group, so that there is no more genetic mixing, eventually this variation will result in a group of individuals that are not reproductively compatible with the main group. Bingo, new species. Do you disagree that this happens?

No that makes sense. So now my question goes back to the OP. If the two groups were sufficiently isolated to result in two different species why are there no living remnants of the "main" group from which modern humans sprang? or the "main" group before that, or the "main" group before that, etc, etc? I'm just trying to understand why none of these "main" groups failed to survive even in remote isolated areas.

 

[Polaris]

Every species has variation. Delineating that variation and declaring one segment within it to be a subspecies and some other segment to be a different one isn't necessary.

Until... the new diverging species can only reproduce with a subset of the species in question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Until... the new diverging species can only reproduce with a subset of the species in question.

At which point, it's a new species.

Edit: and here's where the problems come in with how you define a species. As I pointed out before, sometimes the line between species is less than clear.

 

[Polaris]

At which point, it's a new species.

Edit: and here's where the problems come in with how you define a species. As I pointed out before, sometimes the line between species is less than clear.

Even so, the notion of subspecies is important here as the new species can still reproduce with a subset of the original species (not including itself).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Even so, the notion of subspecies is important here as the new species can still reproduce with a subset of the original species (not including itself).

Whoa!

I'm getting dizzy.

Reminds me of this song:

I’m My Own Grandpa​

​

​

Many, many years ago, when I was twenty three,​

I got married to a widow who was pretty as could be.​

​

This widow had a grown up daughter who had bright hair of red,​

My father fell in love with her, and soon the two were wed.​

​

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life.​

My daughter was my mother, for she was my father’s wife.​

​

To complicate the matters worse, although it brought me joy,​

I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy!​

​

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to dad,​

And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad.​

​

For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother,​

To the widow’s grown up daughter, who, of course, was my step mother.​

​

Father’s wife then had a son, who kept them on the run,​

And he became my grandson, for he was my daughter’s son.​

​

My wife is now my mother’s mother and it makes me blue;​

Because, although she is my wife, she is my grandma, too.​

​

If my wife is my grandmother, then I am her grandchild;​

And every time I think of it, it simply drives me wild.​

​

For now I have become, the strangest case you ever saw,​

As the husband of my grandmother, I’M MY OWN GRANDPA!!​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even so, the notion of subspecies is important here as the new species can still reproduce with a subset of the original species (not including itself).

It's only important in terms of dividing things up into compartmentalized segments for the benefit of humans. In reality, life is all one big, smooth continuum.

 

[Autodidact]

No that makes sense. So now my question goes back to the OP. If the two groups were sufficiently isolated to result in two different species why are there no living remnants of the "main" group from which modern humans sprang? or the "main" group before that, or the "main" group before that, etc, etc? I'm just trying to understand why none of these "main" groups failed to survive even in remote isolated areas.

Because they went extinct. Remember, over 99% of species do go extinct. If you picture all species ever as a tree, we have only the leaves left. The trunk, limbs, branches and even twigs are all extinct.

It's best not to start with people. Just understand the theory first. Use lizards or fish to get it.

Sorry for snippiness; I get tired of having to ask people to answer my questions.

 

[Autodidact]

You assume too much.

My intent isn't to attempt to poke holes in evolution theory, my intent is to better understand the theory. I'm perfectly open to the idea that God used evolutionary processes to create man (and all other forms of life). I have questions that I would like answered to help resolve conflicts that I perceive in evolution theory.

I was going to apologize for assuming that you were disputing ToE, and explain the source of my misconception. Then I went back and read the OP:

If man evolved in a progressive manner from some lesser species, then why are none of those intermediate forms of life found anywhere?

This is clearly false and based on a misunderstanding both of ToE and the evidence that supports it. And it is of a form frequently seen from creationists: "Oh yeah, if ToE is true, then how come...[insert falsehood here]?" If you really have a question about human evolution, what other species we are related to and how, wouldn't the best way to find out be to read a book or at least Google it, not pose it on an internet message board regarding religion?

 

[crystalonyx]

Actually, different species of modern animals can reproduce, the lion and tiger for example, although they don't normally do it in nature. The lion and tiger are so close genetically they can reproduce, although their offspring may not be able to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, different species of modern animals can reproduce, the lion and tiger for example, although they don't normally do it in nature. The lion and tiger are so close genetically they can reproduce, although their offspring may not be able to.

Same with horses and donkeys as well. That gets into part of the definition for species I gave before: two animals are the same species if they can mate to produce reproductively viable offspring, i.e. offspring who can reproduce themselves.

 

[Autodidact]

So if I understand your question, Polaris, you want to know how many species between us and the last common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees (our nearest relative), as contrasted to how many species we should "expect" to find?

Warnings:
1. I have no special expertise in this subject whatsoever.
2. It's really complicated.
3. There's a lot that is not yet known and being argued about.

O.K., here's a chart from TalkOrigins, an excellent resource:

This chart summarizes what we know now. It lists the species between our last common ancestor with chimps. It looks like we're around 8 (or so) species away from it, and chimps are around 9 away, for a rough total of around 18 species. For some reason you believe that this is not enough to account for the number of genetic differences between us and chimps, without knowing how many there are, how many there usually are between two closely related species, or what , if anything, we know about the DNA of our ancestral species. Is that about right?

 

[Storm]

I don't know about Polaris, Auto, but I can't read that chart at all. It's too small. Can you link to a larger version?

 

[Autodidact]

Hominid Species

 

[Autodidact]

For a particularly cool way to tour the fossil skulls, click here.

Out of curiousity, what would be the YEC explanation for fossils like this?